St. LOUIS -- Michael Leighton passed his end-of-season physical last season he even though he had back issues.

Flyers general manager Paul Holmgren said Saturday there was no reason to suspect Leighton was experiencing disc problems in his back before he signed a new contract because his physical was fine.

Holmgren did not address the touchy subject of what may happen if this becomes an insurance issue, where Leighton would miss the remainder of the season. As of now, the medical staff expects a full recovery from Leighton's impending back surgery within six to eight weeks.

The issue could be sticky if someone challenges that Leighton had a pre-existing condition before signing his new, two-year contract in July.

“More often than not, teams insure their top five players,” Holmgren said without elaborating.

Holmgren said the organization has already discussed with players about disclosing all injuries to the team's medical staff, imploring them not to withhold any piece of information from the training staff, regardless of how insignificant the condition.

Both Leighton and Ian Laperriere admit they had issues last spring during the playoffs that they didn’t bring to the club’s attention until the summer, or in Laperriere’s case (post-concussion syndrome), this fall.

“We talk about this all the time,” Holmgren said. “It’s the first thing they hear when they come to training camp. It’s a trust factor between them and [trainer] Jim McCrossin, more often than not. Sometimes, these things happen. It’s a physical, demanding sport and injuries happen.

This is actually a really big deal. I don't expect this issue to go away quietly.

I don't know all of the legal ramifications behind Leighton's actions (and he's the only one who applies since Lappy was already under contract), but wouldn't wrongfully withholding information relevant to the situation during contract negotiations be a breach of contract?

If you signed a contract for a construction worker to put up wood framing for a house, and he knowingly gave you wood full of termites, he's held legally responsible for the damage/financial issues directly related to that.

I understand Leighton's intentions were to get signed and secure income, but that's something he cannot legally do.

This is actually a really big deal. I don't expect this issue to go away quietly.

I don't know all of the legal ramifications behind Leighton's actions (and he's the only one who applies since Lappy was already under contract), but wouldn't wrongfully withholding information relevant to the situation during contract negotiations be a breach of contract?

If you signed a contract for a construction worker to put up wood framing for a house, and he knowingly gave you wood full of termites, he's held legally responsible for the damage/financial issues directly related to that.

I understand Leighton's intentions were to get signed and secure income, but that's something he cannot legally do.

A lot of it i would guess depends on the language of the contract. Can they proove it was a pre existing condition? Can they prove leighton negotiated in bad faith? I think it all falls on the flyers and the contract will stand. Cant fault leighton as it was dotn ask dont tell kind of deal.

This is actually a really big deal. I don't expect this issue to go away quietly.

I don't know all of the legal ramifications behind Leighton's actions (and he's the only one who applies since Lappy was already under contract), but wouldn't wrongfully withholding information relevant to the situation during contract negotiations be a breach of contract?

If you signed a contract for a construction worker to put up wood framing for a house, and he knowingly gave you wood full of termites, he's held legally responsible for the damage/financial issues directly related to that.

I understand Leighton's intentions were to get signed and secure income, but that's something he cannot legally do.

We could have really use Leighton and Laperriere's cap it to sign Leino or Zherdev next season.

I seem to remember Holmgren indicating that Leighton alluded to some problems after exercising in the off-season. Or am I completely delusional? If so, this is on Holmgren and McCrossin for not fully checking Leighton out. I'd be okay if this were Brodeur or Vokoun or another high-end goaltender who could conceivably still be a significant contributor even at 80% functioning. As well, if Leighton were already under contract, they could well McCrossin their fingers in the hope that all would be well.

But to not exercise due diligence on a so-so goaltender when the FA market is teeming with as good/better options is just beyond me. How often will this amateurish medical staff be exposed by poor diagnoses, inadequate rehabilitation and myopic player evaluations?

And I can see where Leighton's coming from on the verge of some actual money and stability, but that doesn't make what he did right.

I don't know all of the legal ramifications behind Leighton's actions (and he's the only one who applies since Lappy was already under contract), but wouldn't wrongfully withholding information relevant to the situation during contract negotiations be a breach of contract?

The only way to prevent this situation in the future is to subject the player to a physical before they agree to a contract.

Leighton could withhold whatever he wanted if the Flyers were willingly throwing money at him without ensuring he was healthy.

$4.34m to spend on Zherdev, Leino, two other forwards, and a 7th defenseman.

That's if Walker, Leighton, and Laperriere are off the books and if the cap doesn't rise assuming that Giroux + Carter combine for about $10.00m in salary.

If you move Carle, you have $6.84m to spend on Zherdev, Leino, two forwards, and a 7th defenseman assuming the same as above and that Gustafsson is called up to replace Carle. That's totally doable for Leino or Zherdev, but not both.

The onus is on the Flyers for not giving him a physical prior to signing a contract with him.
Most major sports do this - think of all the trades that have been voided because a physical was failed.
It is sloppy from the Flyers standpoint, and while I think Holmgren is a lot better than what most of the posters think he is, the Flyers seem to me to be too often sloppy in the way they handle things.

I disagree about this being a big deal. This is going to be blown way out of proportion. Every sports team says they want players to be open and honest.

But, bottom line, players are commodities (mostly in the NFL, because contracts are not guaranteed, but the broader point still stands).

Leighton wanted to get paid, and acted unethically, because otherwise, he'd be living in a van down by the river.

I bolded the points I just wanted to throw my 2 cents into. I'm going to agree with Chris in this situation. Part of any contractual obligation is the assumption that the contract is negotiated in good faith. If Leighton knowingly withheld information in order to secure a benefit, there could be a consideration for voiding the contract, which will no doubt cause a grievance hearing, possible arbitration, etc. This has potential to be real messy. Luckily for us fans, most of us don't view Michael Leighton as a stud that we can't live without.

The onus is on the Flyers for not giving him a physical prior to signing a contract with him.
Most major sports do this - think of all the trades that have been voided because a physical was failed.
It is sloppy from the Flyers standpoint, and while I think Holmgren is a lot better than what most of the posters think he is, the Flyers seem to me to be too often sloppy in the way they handle things.

As noted in the other thread... a physical would not necessarily catch this problem. In fact, he had an end of year physical (note: that would be after he apparently began having this problem) that the team would have been well aware of after the SCF.

This is all on Leighton for not disclosing discomfort in his back.

And I would have no problem throwing Holmgren under the bus for this if it was legitimate to do so... outside of this being karma for his stupidity in signing him in the first place, Holmgren didn't do anything specifically wrong here on the back front.

I bolded the points I just wanted to throw my 2 cents into. I'm going to agree with Chris in this situation. Part of any contractual obligation is the assumption that the contract is negotiated in good faith. If Leighton knowingly withheld information in order to secure a benefit, there could be a consideration for voiding the contract, which will no doubt cause a grievance hearing, possible arbitration, etc. This has potential to be real messy. Luckily for us fans, most of us don't view Michael Leighton as a stud that we can't live without.

Depends what if anything the CBA says about such an injury situation...

As noted in the other thread... a physical would not necessarily catch this problem. In fact, he had an end of year physical (note: that would be after he apparently began having this problem) that the team would have been well aware of after the SCF.

This is all on Leighton for not disclosing discomfort in his back.

And I would have no problem throwing Holmgren under the bus for this if it was legitimate to do so... outside of this being karma for his stupidity in signing him in the first place, Holmgren didn't do anything specifically wrong here on the back front.

Why does he have to disclose it if they are not asking anything about it? Forget about ethics and being honest for a second. Unless the contract ha sa clause that says it could be voided if a pre existing condition exist, i dont say a word if i am leighton.

Lot of things could have (indeed appear to have happened) between an end of the year physical and when a contract is signed. As a short list, eye problems, heart problems, back problems you have got to give a physical to someone you sign. You ask, "are you having problems with... head, back, feet, etc...". You just do this when you sign a contract with someone who you are depending on for a physical sport.

Things happen very quickly in life and health changes. If they ask these questions and he answers falsely than you have grounds to get out of the contract.

Depends what if anything the CBA says about such an injury situation...

True, but I'd make the (completely unsubstantiated) assumption that disclosure of injury is a fundamental of any sports league's CBA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO

Why does he have to disclose it if they are not asking anything about it? Forget about ethics and being honest for a second. Unless the contract ha sa clause that says it could be voided if a pre existing condition exist, i dont say a word if i am leighton.

True, but I'd make the (completely unsubstantiated) assumption that disclosure of injury is a fundamental of any sports league's CBA.

Isn't that the very definition of "bad faith negotiation?"

I really dont know. Why disclose as he knows he may not get that contract? I think it is on the team to do their due dilligence. In thos instance they had no reason to believe he had backissues though. Real touchy subject, legally that is imo.

I really dont know. Why disclose as he knows he may not get that contract? I think it is on the team to do their due dilligence. In thos instance they had no reason to believe he had backissues though. Real touchy subject, legally that is imo.

I wonder if the CBA even defines injury. A player could state that he thought he merely had chronic pain that did not alter his effectiveness.

Why does he have to disclose it if they are not asking anything about it? Forget about ethics and being honest for a second. Unless the contract ha sa clause that says it could be voided if a pre existing condition exist, i dont say a word if i am leighton.

As in the construction metaphor I gave earlier, I doubt the contract says that you're supposed to use termite free wood, but that should be implied.

You expect that house to be at least a feasible house, just like you expect Leighton to be a goalie when you sign him, not a goalie with a ****ed up back.

If he ****s up his back after that, then that's a completely different story.

I don't think you can really blame Leighton here. Depending on to what extent he knew anyway. If he knew, medically, that he had issues with his back then yeah...but if it was a case of him having some back pain off and on then for all we knew he figured that's all it was, some pain, and he figured he could play with it. If it's that, then there's no way he jeopardizes maybe the only contract like this he'll ever get.